Here I promote my spiritual organization, Core Webworks. Near the end of the video, you'll see that David Quinn & Kevin Solway are featured as the "balls" of humanity. Rowden is the base, and as you move up the shaft, the spirituality becomes increasingly feminine.

I also believe David Quinn symbolizes "Mars", a war-like spirituality. Solway is more like neptune, much further out and ghost-like.

Core Webworks will be wiring a Global spirituality. If things work out in the way I intend, our work will be the dominate paradigm in a global spirituality for likely the next 200 years or so.

You'll see half-way through, a picture of me and my family at Christmas. My parents reaction will be interesting after I post this on facebook.

You'll see half-way through, a picture of me and my family at Christmas. My parents reaction will be interesting after I post this on facebook.

Your parents must know something about your life by now. They invited you for Christmas and you accepted, so they know that you want to share in their lives. There is no need to be concerned about their "reaction" to the video - you are thirty years of age. At this stage in your parent’s life, they’d just be glad that you be independent, so that they can get on with their own lives.

Once you have the "dominate paradigm in a global spirituality" what do you imagine will cause it to end/change after "200 years or so"?

I note that in your video you mention some past and present GF contributors: Dan Rowden, Kelly Jones, David Quinn and Kevin Solway. Are they all signed-up members of your “organization”?

I will be promoting their work and David agreed to do an interview with me, which I will be publishing in my ezine.

Your parents must know something about your life by now. They invited you for Christmas and you accepted, so they know that you want to share in their lives. There is no need to be concerned about their "reaction" to the video - you are thirty years of age. At this stage in your parent’s life, they’d just be glad that you be independent, so that they can get on with their own lives.

-Sue-Your parents must know something about your life by now. They invited you for Christmas and you accepted, so they know that you want to share in their lives. There is no need to be concerned about their "reaction" to the video - you are thirty years of age. At this stage in your parent’s life, they’d just be glad that you be independent, so that they can get on with their own lives.

More passive aggression. Take some responsibility, Tomas - and engage in discussion directly, openly, honestly and intelligently. This requires courage and love. It may also require many years that have been wasted lurking on other people. I don't take kindly to old men who refuse to act as mentors, and instead choose to shake the confidence of young people with passive aggression.

As of right now, I consider you an abuser. Like I said, take some responsibility.

Cory Duchesne wrote:More passive aggression. Take some responsibility, Tomas - and engage in discussion directly, openly, honestly and intelligently. This requires courage and love. It may also require many years that have been wasted lurking on other people. I don't take kindly to old men who refuse to act as mentors, and instead choose to shake the confidence of young people with passive aggression.

As of right now, I consider you an abuser. Like I said, take some responsibility.

Cory Duchesne wrote:More passive aggression. Take some responsibility, Tomas - and engage in discussion directly, openly, honestly and intelligently. This requires courage and love. It may also require many years that have been wasted lurking on other people. I don't take kindly to old men who refuse to act as mentors, and instead choose to shake the confidence of young people with passive aggression.

As of right now, I consider you an abuser. Like I said, take some responsibility.

You're not young anymore, boy.

You're 31.

Again, trying to make people feel old? I don't feel old at all, I do feel like a boy, and I will remain in that state.

The likely truth - Tomas, you feel old and used up, and so you take that feeling of being old and your project it onto others.

You probably feel like a criminal too, though you're perhaps not concious of it.

The job of older people like yourself is to coach the younger people. I am a young man. And you, my friend, are an abuser, not just of me, but of this entire forum. You don't do philosophy, yet, you're here.

Cory Duchesne wrote:More passive aggression. Take some responsibility, Tomas - and engage in discussion directly, openly, honestly and intelligently. This requires courage and love. It may also require many years that have been wasted lurking on other people. I don't take kindly to old men who refuse to act as mentors, and instead choose to shake the confidence of young people with passive aggression.

As of right now, I consider you an abuser. Like I said, take some responsibility.

All you have to do is read a few of his posts to see that Tomas is an abuser.

He contributes nothing to GF. He never has. He's a gossip-monger, concerned with personalities instead of (horrors!) actual ideas, let alone anyone's spiritual or personal development. You cannot teach an old dog new tricks - once an attack dog, always an attack dog. He's like the pickled old drunk I saw on a Greyhound once. A passenger was seating himself across the aisle and was placing his luggage in the overhead rack. In so doing, his back was naturally turned to the old man. The old man takes this as some kind of personal offense. "Hey buddy! Don't fucking stick your ass in my face! Buddy! Get you ass outta my face!!" This got louder, until the conductor intervened, annoyed at the old man's carrying on. "Do you want to leave the bus, or are you going to sit there quietly?" In a flash, I understood the bitter old man to be some kind of veteran, since upon seeing a man in uniform (albeit merely a conductor's uniform), became instantly subservient. "You ain't mad at me, are ya?" he kept repeating in a cowering, plaintive voice.

So it is with Tomas. He's this and that, the tank and all, Freemason and other imaginary ranks, always sniffing around contributors at GF until he thinks he spots a weakness, then like the attack dog he is, goes for that. You know what? I take that back! Tomas is no attack dog. He is like a cartoon character - an old weasel who thinks he is an attack dog! Yet he will find a million different ways to suck QRS dick. He has no philosophy, he neither agrees nor disagrees with them, but he senses they are the local authority with the power to ban people, so out comes his tongue and up goes his ass.

Individuality emerges out of vanity; since we need onlookers and want to be seen. The vain person is also interested in other people and is a keen observer of man. And because evil is the same in everyone (“Misery loves company”), the person I stare at looks back at me; that is, he wants to be seen by me. My curiousity is his shamelessness

--

The angel in man is the immortal in him; the devil in him is only that which perishes. After attaining sanity, that a person becomes insane is only possible through his own fault.

--

There is an ethical reason why man needs a weapon (if even his hand) to take his own life. He did not give life to himself, and only God can take it from him; but the suicide belongs to the devil.

--

To the devil, everything, and indeed his power, is only on loan. He knows that (that is why he regards God as his provider; why he revenges himself on God; all evil is annihilation of the believer; the criminal wants to kill God) and does not know it or know otherwise (this is why he is the fool on Judgement Day). At the same time, that he knows this and does not know it is his lie.

--

The devil, you see, is the man who has everything, and yet is not good, while totality only flows from good and only exists through good. The devil knows the whole of heaven, and wants to use God as a means to an end (he is thus essentially a hypocrite): and of course he is used as a means to the same degree.

jupiviv wrote:If that is spirituality then the amazing atheist is a Buddha.

more passive aggression. Again, you guys have got to put your insecurities aside and do some psychology with me.

I have had my disagreements with jupiviv, but I have to disagree here. Jup contributes - possibly only because he can, but he seems actually to think about things and form some conclusions. I see Jupiviv as neither passive nor aggressive.

Permit me, however, to make a personal observation. I studied psychology at the Uni level for a number of years a while back (I myself am no youngster) and I never, and I mean never came across the term "passive aggressive." This is a term suitable for the slack-jawed "experts" who regularly cropped up on Orca Winfrey. Such as that Oprah spin-off abomination, Dr.Phil.

People accused in such contexts of being "passive-aggressive" are usually neither passive nor aggressive.

Similarly, I dealt with actually autistic children during the coursework of one semester. Their level of dissociation was truly astounding. The characteristics of autism that were commonly accepted were its totality; its inaccessibility to any kind of intervention (see Bettelheim's The Empty Fortress); and its rarity.

Today, every preschooler who appears abnormal in any way is autistic.

Though I digressed here, Cory, my point is simple to be careful when diagnosing people's behavior. I have always thought of Jupi as no one's enemy at GF, and likely has few true enemies in real life. Although, Jup, you are young and wealthy - surely you must have some enemies...?

jupiviv wrote:If that is spirituality then the amazing atheist is a Buddha.

more passive aggression. Again, you guys have got to put your insecurities aside and do some psychology with me.

I have had my disagreements with jupiviv, but I have to disagree here. Jup contributes - possibly only because he can, but he seems actually to think about things and form some conclusions. I see Jupiviv as neither passive nor aggressive.

Permit me, however, to make a personal observation. I studied psychology at the Uni level for a number of years a while back (I myself am no youngster) and I never, and I mean never came across the term "passive aggressive." This is a term suitable for the slack-jawed "experts" who regularly cropped up on Orca Winfrey. Such as that Oprah spin-off abomination, Dr.Phil.

People accused in such contexts of being "passive-aggressive" are usually neither passive nor aggressive.

Similarly, I dealt with actually autistic children during the coursework of one semester. Their level of dissociation was truly astounding. The characteristics of autism that were commonly accepted were its totality; its inaccessibility to any kind of intervention (see Bettelheim's The Empty Fortress); and its rarity.

Today, every preschooler who appears abnormal in any way is autistic.

Passive aggression is a huge problem, and if you have no concept of it, that's pretty scary to me. Passive aggression is mainly about being disagreeable, but not having the courage, intelligence or energy to confront the issue directly.

I admire men who can lock horns, directly. The other kind of man uses ambiguous comments, insinuations and forgetfulness, and sometimes will attack the enemy indirectly by doing damage behind his back. Gossip is usually passive aggressive.

Although, Jup, you are young and wealthy - surely you must have some enemies...?

Me and Jup have locked horns before, and Diebert has also noticed that Jup can be very thick/pig headed.

Corey wrote:There is an ethical reason why man needs a weapon (if even his hand) to take his own life. He did not give life to himself, and only God can take it from him; but the suicide belongs to the devil.

But this is in reality not so!

I had thought long and hard about this before I mentioned it in a previous post, but since I already have, I will make bold to say it again. One little-known esoteric fact is that everyman has the physical ability to opt out of this life. But to be able to exercise this ability - which involves no weapons, no external means, no belt or shoe-strings which the jailer confiscates for this very reason - one must go through the journey of admitting the truth to oneself in no uncertain terms.

It is, I would guess, not immediate. I can only tell you it has to do with controlling one's breath. One learns in Biology class that it is impossible to hold one's breath until one dies. This may be true. What is not so well known, is that everyone can suppress his breathing until he dies. This is different, since it requires developing control. It is not "holding" the breath, which is sucking in a lungful until forced to exhale. It is gradually tamping it down, bit by bit. In so doing, one's mind leaves this realm and begins to contemplate the truths of one's life and its meaning. It cannot be done in one session, although I suppose this can vary.

In other words, it must be a fully informed choice.

If it is true that God gave one life, then it is a gift, freely given. As such, it can be returned. If people could only realize that God intends no suffering and like any good parent, will accept the decisions of his children if they have demonstrated they have given them due consideration.

Passive aggression is a huge problem, and if you have no concept of it, that's pretty scary to me. Passive aggression is mainly about being disagreeable, but not having the courage, intelligence or energy to confront the issue directly.

Of course I have a conception of what people mean when they say this! The problem is, they mean all sorts of different things. As any kind of psychological diagnosis, it is almost worthless due to its ambiguity.

If it is mainly about being disagreeable, then people have always been disagreeable. Why not just say as much? Why the need of a new pseudo-analytical term? Using the term is a cop out - it is an example in itself of being passive aggressive. Just watch the idiots in a TV studio audience nodding when a talking head utters "passive-aggressive."

BTW, I disagree with this part: "not having the courage, intelligence or energy to confront the issue directly." True as far as it goes, but you might add the element of cunning.

To understand my unease with the term - if not the concept - try this. Ask a woman, preferably a youngish one, what irony is. This is another term bandied about, and few use it correctly, and when it is used, further analysis comes to a grinding halt. The only thing worse than someone who fails to comprehend something is a person who believes he/she does.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Diagnosis? I made no such thing. Why are you telling lies? You assert the worthlessness of a diagnosis, yet here you are making a diagnosis of me.

Of course I'm not diagnosing you. What's the matter with you today? You said:

More passive aggression. Take some responsibility, Tomas - and engage in discussion directly, openly, honestly and intelligently. This requires courage and love. It may also require many years that have been wasted lurking on other people. I don't take kindly to old men who refuse to act as mentors, and instead choose to shake the confidence of young people with passive aggression.

As of right now, I consider you an abuser. Like I said, take some responsibilityAs of right now, I consider you an abuser. Like I said, take some responsibility.

My kvetch was with the term "passive-aggressive." I guess I thought I was making myself clear.

Listen, I think your assessment of Tomas at least in this thread is spot on. I wasn't saying you are diagnosing the old bastard - leave that to me.

Corey - if I said anything that personally indicts you in any way above, point it out!! I have a specific problem with the term passive-aggressive because after going most of a lifetime of never hearing it, now I hear everyone saying it.

I might as well be clear on this point so you will not take anything I write as a personal remark about (or diagnosis of) you. I gave above the misuse of the term irony as an example of a popular misconception propagated by the sheer momentum of the ubiquity of its misapplication. Consider if you will the example of another such quasi-psychological term: the ego.

It is my position that comparatively few people understand the Freudian meaning by which this term has passed into commonplace Western parlance. How often have you heard supposedly educated women making some pronouncement about the "male ego"? To such people, it is synonymous perhaps with "penis" in being an appendage which half the world gets along just fine without. Entirely lost is the ego, superego, id construct which Freud judged that women lack the capacity to develop in a healthy, adaptive way. Instead, it is like calling someone a Kraut before you shoot him or a nigger before you hang him from a tree. The male ego - since women believe they lack a counterpart thereof - therefore becomes a weakness and something fair to deride and exploit in males. To such women, men are objects, their feelings are merely male egos. If they get hurt, then of course it is their fault for having these superfluous "male egos."

Cory Duchesne wrote:Here's the deal, and this goes to all of you. If you're going to speak to me, put all your heart and mind into it. If I catch any snide, heartless comments, you will be ignored.

End of story.

BTW, one can only hope you make good on this promise.

But here's a little something I noticed about GF: If you try to rise above the fray, you will fall faster than a meteorite landing in Siberia, with as much notice. But if you - even by accident - sink to your own level, the thread will take on a life of its own.

I sank to my own level a looooong time.ago: wonderfulaciousness on lightly browned toast.

Cory, I think I might lose before I even join the battle. I like much of what you have been writing. I've read every post and watched the videos. I was and am especially interested in your 'death process' from 25-30, and also to know what exactly happened in the affair with the woman. My impression is you are on an edge, and such edges are inevitable. Respectfully, I suggest that you misread cousinbasil. But, it is easy to misread people. I reread some of our past exchanges and noticed how I misread you at points. Your recent posts have opened my eyes to not a different person but a fuller peeson than I'd imagined. I am very interested in what your recent experiences have been about.

If you are Cyclops, won't that inevitably draw forth an Odysseus? (Joke...)

Cory wrote:Bud, I'm like a massive Cyclops. When I swing my leg and you're in the way, you go flying for miles. If a mosquito bites me, you're getting flicked off.

I'm here to deal with serious people who have made their personalties on the internet transparent. Is that more clear?

Where's your website? Do you have one?

You pretentious wanker.

First, I am not your "Bud."

Second, a massive Cyclops requires a mere well-placed Finger-Poke to go blind. Posting on the Internet let's other see you - it has zero effect on what you yourself can see. And you should know that a Cyclops lacks depth perception.

Third, if you are so fucking smart, why do you not know that the Internet is capitalized - that "internet" with a small "i" is a corporate network?

Buffoon.

Fourth, you have no personality - or you would not believe crafting or posting amateur videos equates to having a personality.

Fifth, a "personality" is the artificial interpretation of "personhood" that small minds must resort to; and which if you had an ounce of insight you would know you already had and wasting time with your "serious" online presence only degrades.

Lastly, oh wise Virtual All-Seeing Orb - I have crafted web sites for people every bit as inconsequential as yourself. And a few with at least something to offer.